Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing a plan 
for universal health care coverage. George Stephanopoulos asked him on This Week whether this wasn't a reversal of his pledge to not raise taxes, and the Governor's answer was that Californians currently pay a hidden tax by subsidizing the cost of the medical treatment received by uninsured persons visiting the ER. Studies show 
that "uninsured receive less preventive care, are diagnosed at a more advanced stage and, once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have a higher mortality rate. Because they have poorer general health than the insured, they end up in emergency rooms because they have nowhere else to go, when neglected chronic health conditions have become life threatening." Kudos to the Governor for taking steps to tackle the problem of growing health care expenses in a compassionate and fiscally sensible fashion, and for ignoring the predictable ranting from Rush and his ilk.
Comments :
Federalism at work
California's experiments are sure to illuminate the real-world impacts of the various forms of universal health care under discussion.
If you don't think healthcare is broken then you've never been seriously ill or injured before.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Yup
Probably better that states experiment and find what works best (for them) than a top-down federal program. Although the only reason any of this is taking place is because of the federal law that hospitals cannot refuse emergency care.
It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out before 2008.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Interesting twist
I'm not keeping up with all the discussion going on in California, but I did find something that I thought was quite interesting.
Individual health insurance is being routinely denied in California to otherwise healthy and insurable individuals based on the fact they're taking cholesterol-lowering drugs (among other common drugs).
Catch-22, eh? If you don't take these "necessary" drugs, then you are risking becoming one of those who failed to ameliorate one's condition and therefore overburden the healthcare system when you do finally crater (as conventional wisdom says), yet if you take them, you are uninsurable.
One solution might be to find an individual plan that doesn't cover drugs, under the theory that yes, maybe I do choose to take medication, but I do not expect the costs of those drugs to be borne by insurance premiums. But, strangely enough, when we searched for such plans (not that we take medication, but that we do not) none were to be found.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Short-term versus long-term
Yeah, everyone acts in their own short-term interest: insurance companies won't cover what they view as potentially risky or costly candidates, people won't change their lifestyle or take medication to ward off possible future medical problems, people without insurance go to the ER because it's free, hospitals can't help but feel pressure to give substandard care to the uninsured because it's free.
And yet much of this is against long-term interest: for example, the actions of the insurance companies make it more likely that government will act to mandate coverage and hence cut into their profit margin, and people taking better care of themselves could save many thousands of dollars in medical costs down the road. You're right, the short-term motivation causes Catch-22 situations, and it seems like the market isn't providing a way to break these deadlocks, thus making government-driven reform inevitable. Dunno why there aren't plans out there that don't cover drugs, as you describe...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Devious:
I mean, I agree, but that's definitely sidestepping the fact that he lied. At least he's breaking a promise to the other side, but it shows that he's a politician first and foremost.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yeah, he's a politician,
but he can work with both sides and can change his mind when he screws up, qualities notably absent in most Republican leaders these days...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Like changing your mind is some kind of crime.
Good for Ahnold.
He has his ways, and they seem practical.
I'm only half stupid
Bush to propose new health insurance regulations
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ap3w8UOP_kf0
According to the link, the President is supposed to propose new tax legislation regarding the deductability of health insurance premiums.
I'm posting this here, but perhaps this could be a FP discussion item?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Government
does no one any favors by giving tax breaks like this. All it amounts to is that the health insurance corporations will be able to raise their premiums to follow what the market will bear. Nice way to give an extra profit to one of the most wasteful and useless segments of the economy.
Sic semper tyrannis
Perhaps
it would be more beneficial if we were to discuss the actual facts of the proposal instead of making assumptions. Although we don't have all the facts yet and probably won't until the speech. But here are some preliminary musings about the impact of the proposal.
First, from the Bloomberg article, the tax breaks will be for the working man (offset by reducing the tax breaks a corporation already gets).
Second, the individual tax breaks might be in the form of actual tax credits, not deductions.
Third, there are pros/cons to the idea of making health insurance more individual in nature -- tying it to an employer forces a group structure that tends to raise costs for anyone outside the group and may be an obsolete way of doing this given how people choose to be employed these days.
Fourth, the insurance companies may not "win" through this -- in fact, they might face significant changes in the way they do business.
and Fifth, we have two more years of this presidency and then how many more before a "grander" vision of healthcare reform might be voted upon and implemented. Sure it may not be the whole enchilada, but it could be a good-size step in the right direction.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Purpleface
The price charged for goods and services is whatever the market can bear. If a rebate is introduced the prices can be hiked to hijack that amount without letting the customer keep it. So unless the government regulates prices how are you going to stop the health insurance corporations from internalizing the extra profit?
Any solution that does not rely on a single payer system, where that payer's main goal is providing affordable health care to everyone instead of making a profit is going to be just another corporate feed trough
Sic semper tyrannis
I don't see your POV
I think the situation is a bit different from what I think you're describing, but you're speaking in generalities and therefore I cannot follow your logic. You seem to be assuming that no specifics could be hammered out or negotiated by the current Congress that might address your concerns about the free market forces (as if free market forces are at work today in healthcare, which they are not.)
Single payer may be where we end up sometime in the next twenty years, but do not underestimate the level of resistance that will be faced to design and implement such a change in our healthcare system. Ongoing maintenance of such a system (like Canada's) requires bureaucratic competence; if you think we have that now, take a stroll through the French Quarter.
Legislation that has nearterm goals and easily achieveable objectives may be easy to justify, explain, pass, and implement NOW and take us a step further down the path of solving the healthcare problem. It may also have the added bonus of being just as easily "corrected" if significant unexpected results happen after implementation. It certainly would not affect or delay the design or implementation of a grander scheme.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein